Nuance does not equal ambiguity, and nuanced laws have been enforced effectively in the past.

Again managing to ignore all nuance in a situation. It's obvious this is going nowhere, so I'll extricate myself.

But before I go; I'm not looking to press charges against transgender individuals, I'm looking to improve their ability to use bathrooms related to the gender they identify with. A third party can check what gender identity is being presented based on descriptions/looking.

The law isn't perfect, but it is better than TRULY ambiguous laws that leave that same exemplary person without any knowledge of their ability to use the bathroom, or the binary law that shunts that person to a bathroom where they are very likely to be harassed.

I'm not looking to press charges against transgender individuals, which is frankly a ridiculous accusation considering the fact that this hypothetical law is being drafted to improve the lives of transgender individuals, and I have consistently presented arguments that accomodated said transgender people. Current law = that hypothetical person is charged, period. Hypothetical law = that person is very unlikely to be charged, and the criterion for said charging is very clear. It is not the best solution, but it is -better-.

I would -prefer- if people weren't so horrible overall (sexual assaults and the like), but since they aren't, things have to take them into account, even if it sometimes make the law less unequivocally.

And really? A wolf in sheep's clothing?

Look at me over here, systemically undermining the rights of a group a large number of my friends.... by arguing for their bathroom rights in the most effective way I can conceive of, knowing friends of mine who had been charged, and friends of mine who had been assaulted for being transgender in the bathroom of their biological sex....